By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
46k figure is overall what? You aren't making much sense here. I don't think you understand the data. You are using one set of data for excess deaths that doesn't tally up with another set of data you are using that refers to overall deaths.
Being precise matters here. Based on the latter statistics you've posted, if there are 46k excess deaths from a total of 108k deaths and a third of the overall deaths are from Covid then that means Covid accounts for around 36k of the 46k excess deaths, i.e. just over three quarters of them. Compare that with your earlier link which says there are 30k excess deaths and only 10k - just one third - are from Covid. Those figures don't tally up, in fact there's a massive discrepancy there.
46k figure is overall what? You aren't making much sense here. I don't think you understand the data. You are using one set of data for excess deaths that doesn't tally up with another set of data you are using that refers to overall deaths.
Being precise matters here. Based on the latter statistics you've posted, if there are 46k excess deaths from a total of 108k deaths and a third of the overall deaths are from Covid then that means Covid accounts for around 36k of the 46k excess deaths, i.e. just over three quarters of them. Compare that with your earlier link which says there are 30k excess deaths and only 10k - just one third - are from Covid. Those figures don't tally up, in fact there's a massive discrepancy there.
46k excess deaths including in hospitals.
What part of "over the past five weeks, care homes and other community settings had had to deal with a “staggering burden” of 30 000 more deaths than would normally be expected" are you struggling with?
I think the issue is they are using figures they don't really understand. It's the headline that they're interested in and when they have to go beyond that they're struggling. That's why we've ended up with different sets of figures that don't really tally up.
What part of "over the past five weeks, care homes and other community settings had had to deal with a “staggering burden” of 30 000 more deaths than would normally be expected" are you struggling with?
FFS. I'm out. It's clear you don't understand the data. You keep going back to a single quote that you like the look of and you've got massively lost when asked how that figure is backed up by the data.
"Also re your spike in infections in Southend after the May bank holiday. The link shows an increase of 5 infections more than the previous month in a population of 175000 people."
I think the issue is they are using figures they don't really understand. It's the headline that they're interested in and when they have to go beyond that they're struggling. That's why we've ended up with different sets of figures that don't really tally up.
Yep, exactly. You put it far more eloquently than I do but that's what I was trying to express much further in the thread by suggesting that they appear to understand the figures in isolation but the problems start once they start trying to mix data or apply logic which requires a bit of a leap to get to the conclusions they are.
"Also re your spike in infections in Southend after the May bank holiday. The link shows an increase of 5 infections more than the previous month in a population of 175000 people."
Pure comedy gold.
Laugh it up chuckles, I've been reading page after page of you struggling to understand something I play a part in on a daily basis.
I get it, for some reason you think that the virus isn't as dangerous as the government are making out and that the numbers are not representative of those that have passed away due to Covid-19.
You can't evidence this, it's a thought/feeling/idea - none of the data you or BC have supplied supports this thought/feeling/idea.
Yep, exactly. You put it far more eloquently than I do but that's what I was trying to express much further in the thread by suggesting that they appear to understand the figures in isolation but the problems start once they start trying to mix data or apply logic which requires a bit of a leap to get to the conclusions they are.
"The latest weekly deaths data from the ONS shows that a total of 45,748 deaths involving Covid-19 had been registered in England and Wales as of 29 May.
The number of excess deaths in the period from the week ending 27 March to 29 May was 57,961. Statisticians say this figure could show undiagnosed Covid-19 deaths as well as deaths caused by a lack of treatment resulting from the lockdown."
I'm still not sure what the source is for these 30k excess deaths just in care homes with 20k unaccounted for. It seems Bluesquid isn't sure either given how all over the place they've been with their data.
UK - Lockdown - 528 deaths per million, Sweden - No Lockdown - 455 deaths per million.
No proof lockdown makes any difference yet, and I'm saying that as someone who believes it was correct.
Plenty of proof. The UK is not a good example of lockdown because (a) it was late, (b) it wasn’t particularly rigorous, e.g. no border entry quarantine, releasing infected patients into care home. Look at those countries who acted early and strongly, and you’ll see lockdowns have worked.
Plenty of proof. The UK is not a good example of lockdown because (a) it was late, (b) it wasn’t particularly rigorous, e.g. no border entry quarantine, releasing infected patients into care home. Look at those countries who acted early and strongly, and you’ll see lockdowns have worked.
Those figures have all increased since.
I get fed up of reading these false comparisons too.
No, nothing beyond what I already knew. Please explain to me how that data shows that “they are still adding deaths from April to the daily update”
Right now it appears like you’re making quite a few leaps based on assumption, I’m interested to see more of your actual sources.
Edit: your edit suggests a slight moving of the goal posts.
[Post edited 8 Jun 2020 21:17]
But you say you’ve had he virus , on your earlier posts it was I think I’ve had the virus but did not get tested , either you’ve had it with testing or you have not
Did anything happen, say in late-March, that might have reduced the infection rate in the UK?
Hasn’t a recent study shown that the U.K. peaked with infections a week before lockdown and that the figure was already falling as we went into lockdown?
Hasn’t a recent study shown that the U.K. peaked with infections a week before lockdown and that the figure was already falling as we went into lockdown?
Yes, Iv'e seen that reported. It's worth noting that businesses, even the Premier League, had taken action well over a week before the government and had closed offices in favour of WFH or cancelled fixtures. Yes, the government was advising people to do less too so behaviour had started to change well before the lockdown was announced on 23 March.
Given the prevalence of infection at that time - nearly 1,000 people a day were dying two weeks later - then I can't see how the infection rate would have been significantly reduced without a fairly stringent lockdown.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
